1. Petition under Article 32 for enforcement of Article 21 rights challenging the rejection of an application for premature release following conviction for murder under Section 302, IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Sharafat Ali - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No 439 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Important Points
Applications for premature release must be evaluated based on the policy prevailing at the date of conviction. Rejection orders must reflect a considered application of mind to specific facts, such as jail conduct and criminal history, rather than general observations regarding potential victim resentment.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Act Referred
Headnote
Article 21 - Premature Release - Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC] - Section 302, Section 34 - State of Haryana & Ors. vs Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216, State of Haryana and Others vs Raj Kumar @ Bitu. (2021) 9 SCC 292
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought premature release after serving 17 years, 9 months, and 26 days of imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The State government rejected the application citing potential resentment from the victim's side and the petitioner's 'extremist nature'.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the rejection order to be a complete non-application of mind, lacking consideration of relevant circumstances such as the petitioner's conduct in jail and any prior criminal history. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed reconsideration of the application based on the policy at the time of conviction.
Issues: Rejection of application for premature release based on potential societal danger and victim resentment without considering individual circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The application for premature release must be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction, and a considered application of mind to the individual's conduct and circumstances is necessary.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, set aside the rejection order, and directed reconsideration of the application for premature release based on relevant facts and circumstances within two months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner challenges the rejection of premature release; State contends release may cause victim resentment and the petitioner possesses an extremist nature. (Para 3 )
3. The rejection order lacked specific application of mind, relying on general observations about victim resentment while ignoring the petitioner's criminal history and jail conduct. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Applications for premature release must be considered based on the policy in effect on the date of the convict's conviction. (Para 6 )
5. Petition allowed; order rejecting premature release set aside; State directed to reconsider the application based on the policy prevailing at the time of conviction. (Para 9 )
6. Which policy governs the consideration of an application for premature release of a convict?
An application for premature release must be considered based on the policy that was in effect on the date the petitioner was convicted of the offence. (Para 6 )
7. What constitutes a failure of application of mind when rejecting a premature release application?
Relying on general observations regarding potential victim resentment without considering specific factors such as the convict's prior criminal history, jail conduct, and behavior constitutes a patent non-application of mind. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution, following an order dated 30 July 2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature release.
2. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [“IPC”] on 17 January 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment of the trial Judge was affirmed in appeal by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 3 June 2016. The Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was dismissed by this Court on 20 April 2018.
3. The petitioner had undergone 17 years, 9 months and 26 days of imprisonment and submitted an application for premature release. The application for premature release was rejected on 30 July 2021. The order communicating the rejection of the application which has been passed by the State government records that the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police Amethi had in their report stated that if the petitioner is released prematurely, the possibility that this may cause resentment among the side of the victim cannot be ruled out nor can the possibility of an offence being committed again by the petitioner be excluded. The order also states that the petitioner has an “extremist nature” and the presence of bitterness among the parties cannot be denied.
4. Notice was issued in the petition on 8 November 2021, in pursuance of which a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
5. We have heard Mr K L Janjani, counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ardhendu Mauli Kumar Prasad, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. The first principle which must be noted, while adjudicating upon the petition is that the application for premature release has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the petitioner was convicted of the offence. This principle finds reiteration in several judgments of this Court such as State of Haryana & Ors. vs Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216. The most recent of them is the decision in State of Haryana and Others vs Raj Kumar @ Bitu. (2021) 9 SCC 292.
7. The order which has been passed by the State government in the present case is bereft of an application of mind to relevant circumstances bearing on whether the petitioner should be released prematurely. The order contains general observations to the effect that the release may result in resentment on the side of the victim, but this is a general consideration which would govern virtually all criminal offences where a person stands convicted of a serious offence, as in the present case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The order does not contain any reference whatsoever to whether the petitioner possesses any prior criminal history, save and except for the present case. Similarly, the order is completely silent on the conduct and behavior of the petitioner in jail and after he was convicted of the offence. The relevant considerations bearing upon whether the release of the petitioner would pose a danger to society have not been adverted to. There has to be a considered application of mind to the facts of each case.
8. In the circumstances, the order which has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for premature release suffers from a complete and patent non-application of mind.
9. For the above reasons, we allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 30 July 2021 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. We direct that the application of the petitioner for premature release shall be reconsidered on the basis of the policy as it stood on 17 January 2005, when the petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The application shall be considered afresh without the petitioner being r
